According to its editors, this volume, which examines the visual culture of the Afro-Eurasian world from 300–800 CE, is guided by deceptively simple questions about the development of late antique visual koine: 1) why do certain images and iconographies enjoy popularity among patrons of different geographic and cultural origins? and 2) how do these images move from one geographic area to another, in and beyond the boundaries of the former Roman empire? The volume challenges scholars to address these questions using a comparative geographic approach to the archaeological record, thereby abandoning the East/West dichotomy that characterizes study of late antiquity writ broad.[1] To that end, solicited contributions—some of which derive from a panel on this same topic at the 2017 Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference—present analyses of late antique art and artifacts in and around the Mediterranean, together with material culture from (or influenced by) non-Roman territories and groups. For widening the geographic purview of late antique art, this volume and its 14 papers are to be commended.
But how successful are its authors in using globalization to understand the factors informing micro-regional variations in the visual culture of far-flung provincial locales? Guidetti and Meinecke’s introduction casts globalization—a theoretical framework developed to navigate the complex connections that characterize the modern world—as a valuable heuristic device, that is, “good to think with.”[2] Their definition of a globalized late antiquity relies on Justin Jennings’ eight “hallmarks” of a [modern or pre-modern] globalized society, such as ‘time-space compression’ (the feeling of living in a smaller world when that world is highly connected); the ‘standardization’ and ‘homogenization’ of culture, which facilitates socio-economic interactions between different groups; and ‘deterritorialization,’ i.e., culture’s detachment from a particular geographic location, which encourages global and local cultures to intermingle.[3] Thus Guidetti and Meinecke mark late antiquity as globalized. And by doing so, they argue, archaeologists and art historians are better equipped to investigate the multi-scalar dynamics (local, regional, global) that altered standard iconographies/motifs in different regions, and to explore possible networks that facilitate the appropriation of those iconographies.
Interestingly, although none of the volume’s authors openly opposes the use of globalization theory, few engage in discussion of the mechanisms that fueled the creation of a globalized visual culture in late antiquity. That is to say, most of the papers are descriptive analyses that privilege discussion of physical evidence for provincial adaptations of popular koine (the existence of a globalized world is tacitly assumed); less attention is given to the agents, processes, and networks facilitating those adaptations—the hows and whys of visual culture at both the micro- and macro-scale. This is an obvious shortcoming of a volume that, nevertheless, merits recognition as an early and ambitious attempt to advance the last several decades of post-colonial approaches to [late] Roman art and aesthetic culture.[4]
Papers in this volume are loosely organized in four sections: local appropriations of late antique motifs (part I); the spread of visual koine (part II); the entanglement of Roman and non-Roman cultures, and the ways those interactions materialize in the archaeological record (part III); and the movement of images, objects, and iconographies (part IV). But, because there is significant overlap across papers in different sections, this review is organized so as to highlight thematic and methodological commonalities that structure a cohesive but occasionally repetitive collection of case studies.
Papers on the micro-regional reception of popular late antique koine dominate the volume. This is to be expected in part I, where authors concern themselves with late antique iconographies in situ, in mosaics (Montoya González; Place) and paintings (Anđelković Grašar, Rogić, and Nicolić; Barbagli). But later papers set in non-Mediterranean locales—e.g., on bracteates in China (Yunyan)—come to similarly straightforward conclusions about the role of the local in the interpretation of late antique visual culture. That is to say, readers with specialized interests in particular artistic genres or provincial regions are sure to find something of interest here, but readers who are already comfortable dismantling “Romanization”—those with a larger investment in the volume’s exploration of the multi-scalar processes engendering a globalised visual culture—may feel somewhat dissatisfied by rather superficial interrogations of the factors informing local adaptions and by the overwhelming emphasis on elite patrons as agents responsible for those appropriations (as opposed to viewing audiences, artisans, or the objects themselves). Take for example Montoya González’s chapter. The author interprets the prominence of frontal facing victorious charioteers in Emeritensian mosaics not as a product of external influences, but as a strong advertisement of membership in the local elite; the motif’s popularity is correlate with the city’s rising importance in the fourth century both as capital of the Diocesis Hispaniarum and host to ludi circenses. This paper makes a strong case for understanding late antique art in context (‘glocalisation’ makes an appearance here). And yet, what motivated interest in the frontal view of these victorious charioteers, which the author pointedly distinguishes from the profile views known elsewhere, is not explored.
The reluctance to engage with causality also characterizes papers on localized receptions of popular iconographies over the longue durée (e.g., Rosenthal-Heginbottom; Morehouse). For example, Rosenthal-Heginbottom’s chapter surveys equestrian images in the southern Levant from the Hellenistic to early Islamic period. The great chronological and cultural spread of this material—most of which is unprovenanced—is such that the analysis is rather sweeping, and conclusions follow logically and expectedly. According to Rosenthal-Heginbottom, the rider motif appears in media of different culture groups—Greeks and Romans, but also Jews, Christians, and Muslims—at different periods of time. Understandably, its meaning varied depending on the needs of local patrons. But by this point in time, conclusions about patrons are expected, and the reader finds themselves wondering about other agents, powers, bodies, or networks that spread these iconographies in such a readily customizable fashion.
At the surface, papers in part II are concerned with the diffusion of late antique koine, but for theoretically informed discussion of this subject a reader should consult later chapters by Meinecke and Preiser-Kapeller. Meinecke’s analysis of silk textiles from the East in Roman, Byzantine, and Sassanian arts offers a sort of model for the circulation and adoption of these objects and their decorative motifs.[5] How exactly silks moved is not certain, but Meinecke stresses their role as diplomatic gifts among the ruling elite; depictions of these textiles played a powerful role in the construction of sovereigns as “elite.” This in turn characterizes the creation of a deterritorialized visual culture as a top-down process, an argument which finds its complement in earlier discussions of elite patrons in particular localities.
Yet the final chapter by Preiser-Kapeller complicates the top-down approach to the dissemination of popular iconographies somewhat. The author uses small-worlds theory to investigate the scale and intensity of trade along the Silk Road. The Silk Road, according to Preiser-Kapeller, was a “trickle trade”: objects, people, and ideas were moved more by small nodes and nested clusters of habitation than by large caravans of long-distance traders working for different rulers and nation states. What other scholars have called small worlds, or nested settlements, were connected to larger regional and interregional networks, and were essential to the establishment and maintenance of trade. The attention to local agents/traders is welcome in that it problematizes the elite class as supreme creator of culture.
Several papers work to dismantle other powers dominating synthesis of the Roman world, namely, center-periphery models which assume cultural transfer moves uni-directionally from Mediterranean cities to provincial territories (e.g., Helleström; Guidetti). For example, Guidetti considers early examples of so-called consular diptychs made between 380–410 CE in Rome or the western Empire. Guidetti’s analysis is primarily stylistic—the author considers the gradual reception of the Theodosian style in more than a half dozen first-generation diptychs with varied iconographies, most of which retain stylistic tropes from the Valentinianic period. But as Guidetti argues, the persistence of the Valentinianic style, even as Theodosian classicism comes to dominate imperial arts, reflects Rome’s diminishing importance as the center of the Mediterranean world, which in turn supports the volume’s geographic approach to late antique art.
That approach is best served by case studies on the material culture of non-Roman groups and territories. Methodologically, Ferrari’s chapter is perhaps the most intriguing for it leans into the exploration of outside influences on the post-classical world. The author looks for evidence of central Asiatic elements in the material record of post-Roman Gaul: belt buckles in the Aquitanian style, and attitudes towards the treatment of the bones of hunted animals. Discussion of the evidence is rather slim (a lengthy historical review of Hunnic pressures and mass migrations opens the chapter, reminding us that the imagined reader is a Mediterranean archaeologist), but Ferrari’s study calls attention to interchange among Romans and non-Romans as multi-directional. Outsiders played a largely under-synthesized role in shaping both the material record and the cultural beliefs of post-antiquity. The importance of this statement is underscored by both Japp’s and Di Cesare’s chapters on Mediterranean artistic influences impacting the material culture of non-Roman groups in first-millennium South Arabia and the Levant, respectively. Both regions exhibit compelling if conservative responses to the influx of foreign, late antique motifs. These three papers in particular sustain the volume’s most admirable objective: dialogue with scholars who work beyond Roman borders, or are willing to entertain the permeability of those same borders.
In summary, this volume is an excellent resource for case studies on the following themes: the local appropriation of late antique koine in particular regions/localities; the spread and diffusion of late antique iconographies (if in theory more than in practice); and the reception of late antique koine beyond the Mediterranean. There are a decent number of illustrations in each chapter; most articles include color plates as well. Endnotes and bibliography follow each chapter, which helps those interested in individual articles as opposed to the entire collection. As far as the latter is concerned, methodological repetition makes for a cohesive volume, though readers of all 14 papers may find that it becomes tedious. Unfortunately, not all authors engage directly with the question posed in the title of this volume—“A Globalised Visual Culture?” But by bringing globalization to the fore, this collection tasks readers with further investigative research. Indeed, any shortcomings are nothing more than a call to advance our understanding of the great diversity that characterizes late antique art.
Authors and titles
Introduction, Fabio Guidetti and Katharina Meinecke
1. Becoming Glocal! Glocalisation, the Victorious Charioteer from the Villa of El Pomar (Hispania Baetica) and the Emergence of a Regional Visual Koiné in 4th-century Augusta Emerita (Lusitania), Rubén Montoya González
2. Clothing Differentiation in a Shared Visual Culture: Dress Imagery in Mosaic Iconography, Amy Place
3. Act Locally, Think Globally: Late Antique Funerary Painting from the Territory of Present-day Serbia, Jelena Anđelković Grašar, Dragana Rogić, and Emilija Nicolić
4. The Emperors in the Province: A Study of the Tetrarchic Images from the Imperial Cult Chamber in Luxor, Nicola Barbagli
5. Images of the Rider on Horseback in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 1st Millennium AD, Renate Rosenthal-Heginbottom
6. The ‘Child with Grapes’ from Britain to Bahrain: Shared Iconography, Meaning and Mobility on Funerary Monuments, AD 100-500, Lindsay R. Morehouse
7. Baptism and Roman gold-glasses: Salvation and Social Dynamics, Monica Helleström
8. ‘First-generation Diptychs’ and the Reception of Theodosian Court Art, Fabio Guidetti
9. Buckles and Bones: Central Asiatic Influences and the Making of Post-Roman Gaul, Carlo Ferrari
10. South Arabia in Late Antiquity: A Melting Pot of Artistic Ideas, Sarah Japp
11. The Mosaic Pavement Beneath the Floor of the al-Aqṣā Mosque: A Case Study of Late Antique Artistic Koiné, Michelina Di Cesare
12. Circulating Images: Late Antiquity’s Cross-Cultural Visual Koiné, Katharina Meinecke
13. Bracteates with Byzantine Coin Patterns Along the Silk Road, Guo Yunyan
14. Small Worlds of Long Late Antiquity: Global Entanglements, Trade Diasporas and Network Theory, Johannes Preiser-Kapeller
Notes
[1] Competing camps (the “long late antiquity” vs. “decline and fall”) are discussed in Guidetti and Meinecke’s introduction.
[2] The volume builds on several recent discussions of globalization and archaeology / material culture, e.g., M. Pitts and M. J. Versluys (eds.), Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015; T. Hodos (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. London: Routledge, 2017.
[3] Jennings, “Distinguishing Past Globalizations,” in Hodos 2017, 12-28.
[4] Cf. M. Versluys, “Roman Visual Material Culture as Globalizing Koine,” in Pitts and Versluys 2015, 141-74.
[5] Here Meinecke adapts James O. Young’s concepts of object appropriation and motif appropriation: Cultural Appropriation and the Arts. Chichester: Blackwell, 2010. Matthew Canepa’s work also figures prominently, cf. The Two Eyes of the Earth. Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iran. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.